Wednesday, October 13, 2010

WA Ballot Measure Analysis and Recommendations

US District Judge Virginia Phillips in California yesterday, ruled that the military policy, "Don't Ask-Don't Tell," is unconstitutional and the only proper remedy is to grant a broad, worldwide injunction barring the US Military from enforcing its policy.

One activist judge.

Government attorneys objected to halting, "Don't Ask -Don't Tell," saying such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war.

Homosexual rights organizations were cheering the judge last night saying she accomplished what "President Obama and Washington politics could not."

Are they suggesting democracy is unconstitutional as well?

We will keep you posted.

____________________

Washington Ballot Measure Analysis and Recommendations

There are a number of ballot measures that will appear on the Washington State ballot. They can sometimes be confusing and misleading. Some measures are designed to expand government, not limit it.

For example, some have advocated keeping the state in the liquor business, we do not. A state run liquor industry is not more "moral" than a non state liquor industry, nor will it keep people who want liquor from acquiring it. There are some lawmakers who have advocated using the state run liquor industry to distribute marijuana, should they legalize it, while others have advocated expanding the number of state run liquor stores to increase revenue to the state. State government needs to be reduced, not expanded.

Representative Matt Shea is a leader in the legislature on issues most important to Christians and conservatives. He also serves on the board of Faith and Freedom PAC.

We have adopted his analysis and recommendations on the measures as our own.

This link will give you a PDF for your own review and something to circulate among friends and contacts.

As you know, we have targeted several races in the upcoming election that we feel can be won. These, along with other wins, will significantly change the disposition of the State Legislature.

4 comments:

Government attorneys objected to halting, "Don't Ask -Don't Tell," saying such an abrupt change might harm military operations in a time of war.

Unfortunately, we're not technically in a state of war, as we never had a formal declaration from Congress. Otherwise this judge wouldn't have any jurisdiction. At least, I don't think so. Any lawyers familiar with wartime law want to clue me in?

We might as well face the fact that DADT was never going to be more than a stopgap. There's no long-term reason why homosexuals should not be allowed to serve; there are steps that can be taken to prevent it being an unreasonable burden on the rest of the military. Repealing it without taking those steps is going to result in chaos. For starters, what will they do with chaplains who stick to their religions' tenets? Court-martial them?

I'm enjoying the irony that it was a Republican organization that succeeded in this, while the Democratic administration is fighting it. I wonder of all those gay activists who shouted against DADT will be grateful and remember it on Election Day. (Hollow laughter.)

I have usually agreed with your viewpoint, but I totally disagree with you on privatizing the liquor industry. When people buy liquor at the liquor store they usually take it home and drink it. They are not driving drunk or making our streets unsafe as they would be if they were drinking in taverns that will be lining our streets under private liquor by-the-drink sales. I know, because I grew up in a state that sold liquor that way, and I felt the leers of the drunks who stood outside the taverns as I walked home from my job.

Also, it jeopardizes our young people. The state has a very good record of refusing to sell to minors, unlike the smaller establishments.

Make liquor cheaper and more easily accessible, and more people will be drinking more of it, and the misery it causes families will be increased. The state has accountability, and it has worked. We should not change it. Port Orchard, WA

Not an activist judge. If you look at her history you would see in 2001 she ruled in favor of a young nurse (born-again) who refused to distribute the after morning pill and the nurse won under this judge. SO, I have a hard time thinking her an Activist..... please check your facts before you JUDGE.......